In the United States v. Lane et al., 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a violation of the Speedy Trial Act does not necessarily require dismissal with prejudice (meaning permanently barring re-prosecution). The case involved defendants who were indicted for conspiracy to distribute cocaine and other related charges but their trial was delayed beyond the time limit set by the Speedy Trial Act due to court congestion and negligence. They moved for dismissal on these grounds, which was granted by District Court but without prejudice (allowing re-prosecution). Upon appeal, this decision was reversed with instructions to dismiss with prejudice based on repeated violations of speedy trial rights in district courts nationwide. However, upon further appeal from government prosecutors, SCOTUS held that while there had been a violation of statutory requirements under Speedy Trial Act, it did not necessitate permanent dismissal as lower appellate court ordered; instead such decisions should be left at discretion of original trial judge considering factors like seriousness of crime(s), facts/circumstances leading to delay etc.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Lane et al., Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall and Justice Blackmun, argued that the majority's decision to apply harmless-error analysis in this case was inappropriate and inconsistent with previous court rulings. They contended that the violation of respondent’s rights under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(d), which prohibits unauthorized persons from being present during grand jury proceedings, should not be subject to a harmless-error review because it undermines the fundamental fairness of the trial process. The dissent also criticized how lightly such an intrusion into grand jury secrecy was treated by applying a harmless error rule rather than automatic reversal as required by precedent cases like Chapman v. California (1967). Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential future abuses if courts were allowed to disregard violations of rules designed to protect defendants' rights based on their assessment whether or not those violations affected outcome.